PRIVATE EXPRESSION IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: “INTRAMURAL” SPEECH AND THE CONSTITUTION

• Published date: 01 September 1984
• Author: GEORGE E. STEVENS
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.1984.tb00954.x
• Date: 01 September 1984

1980

I

Labor Law

Preemption

I535

that personal liability of endorsers is an effective means of repay-

ing the losses of those who purchase

a

product based upon unsub-

stantiated claims by celebrities for manufacturers.16 Other celebr-

ities would be well-advised to comply with the order’s verification

requirements to avoid future difficulties. The ruling may cause

celebrities to become

wary

of advertising or may make their en-

dorsements conditional on manufacturers’ indemnification in the

event of liability suits. The high cost

of

obtaining celebrity en-

dorsements may have just gone higher.

Arizona State University

M.M.

JENNINGS

PRIVATE EXPRESSION

IN

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT:

“INTRAMURAL” SPEECH AND THE CONSTITUTION

Givhan

v.

Western Line Consolidated School District

99

S.Ct.

693

(1979)

For many years, the state could require a public servant to

relinquish his first amendment rights

as

a

condition of employ-

ment.’ The public employee’s freedom

of

speech

was

subordi-

nated to the state’s interest in efficient public service, and the

employee who believed that his constitutional rights were being

abridged was “at liberty to

. .

.

go

In

Keyishian

u.

Board

of

regent^,^

the United States Supreme

18

It should be noted that the

FTC

will continue

to

attack manufacturers for the unsub-

stantiated claims. On October

11,

1978,

the

FTC

obtained a temporary injunction against

Karr Preventative Medical Producta that prohibits certain claims regarding the perform-

ance

of

“Acne-Statin.”

The

injunction will remain in effect until the

Fl’C

issues further

orders. See

FTC

News Summary, Oct.

13,1978,

at

1.

On July

16,1979

the

FTC

published

a proposed consent order with Karr. The consent order would require

Karr

to

provide

restitution to ita customers, properly verify ita ad claims, and

cease

making certain ad

claims. Public comment has been extended and,

aa

yet, there is no final decision.

44

Fed.

Reg.

41215.

See

R.

DWOSKIN,

RIGHTS

OF

THE

PUELIC

EMPLOYEE

80

(1978);

Sullivan,

Ftee

Speech

and

the

Public

Employee,

46

ILL..

B.J.

174 (1969).

*

Adler v. Bd. of Educ.,

342

U.S.

485,

492 (1962).

’

385

US.

689 (1967).